Liam Fox asks Gary Streeter to run new Tory human rights group

BBC Online reports that Gary Streeter, Tory MP for SW Devon, will run a new human rights group within the Conservative Party. The group is the initiative of Liam Fox, Shadow Foreign Secretary.

Speaking to the Foreign Press Association Dr Fox said that the Conservative Party had a duty to speak up for “unheard-of crises” and “oppressed people”. His speech highlighted the human rights tragedies of Burma, Congo and Darfur. The speech suggested that Dr Fox, a confirmed Eurosceptic and Atlanticist, wishes to broaden Conservative foreign policy. In recent years Tories have narrowly focused on important issues like Europe and Gibraltar but have neglected international justice concerns.

Dr Fox also emphasized the importance of intracontinental trade within Africa if the continent really was to make economic progress:

“Africa is far too dependent on trade with the developed world. It is, of course, right that African farmers should enjoy access to free markets in the developed world. However, this is only part of the solution. There is a catastrophic shortfall in intra-African trade. An important element in developing greater access to markets in the developed world for African producers is ensuring substantial expansion in infrastructure within Africa - especially a road network, which is often non-existent. Air travel between African countries is all but impossible. Many flights from capital to capital in central Africa can be made only via London or Amsterdam. Until Africa's ability to foster intra-continental trade is built up, they will continue to over-depend on trade with the developed world.”

Comments

I'm struck that when there's a posting about personalities - like yesterdays, on Who Did Best At Cheering Up the "return to the 1950s" (forgive the shorthand, I'm teasing) meeting of MPs - we all get excited and cheer on our favourite (sorry editor, I think I'm firming more and mroe towards David C, even though Scottish Harlow George wouldn't even let me finish the sentence on Tuesday night before blasting me from the room) -- but when Liam Fox says something really interesting and thoughtful - we're all as quiet as mice.

I like a LOT what Liam Fox is saying here. It combines our core principle ("core" since the 1980s anyway) of promoting free trade between and within nations, with a strong moral impulse to do good - here is one argument where right of centre people have the strongest economic AND moral ground on which to stand (see Spectator editorials passim). Is this a neat example of the "and" theory of Conservatism expounded on the tory-strategy blog?

This is another interesting thing Dr Fox has said and again something that plays against his (somewhat undeserved) image as ultra-Thatcherite.

It's also something of an echo of Condeleeza Rice's talk about the need to end the "outposts of tyranny".

The points about intra-continental trade are also not often heard.

Graeme said:

"I'm struck that when there's a posting about personalities - like yesterdays, on Who Did Best At Cheering Up the "return to the 1950s" (forgive the shorthand, I'm teasing) meeting of MPs - we all get excited and cheer on our favourite... but when Liam Fox says something really interesting and thoughtful - we're all as quiet as mice."

I suspect it's becuase policy issues, especially ones like this thaty are hardly the top of the agenda (for right or wrong) are raised, people only get worked up if they strongly disagree with them.

I hope Liam Fox does not end up promising with his 'principled'foreign policy something he cannot possibly deliver.Remember Mr.Cook and his'ethical' foreign policy?
Most countries adopt a very 'Machiavellian' approach to foreign policy and will act only when they assume it is in their country's interest.
For all their fine words Condoleeza Rice and George Bush are absolutely no exception.Witness their action or inaction over Saudi Arabia,Uzbekistan,Pakistan,Congo,Zimbabwe and in several South American countries.This is perfectly understandable.What is nauseating is when they try to portray themselves as somehow more 'ethical' than their predecessors.There is absolutely no evidence for it.
If I were Liam Fox I would be trying to foster good relationships with all sides of American political persuasions.After all the antics of the half witted president may have ensured that Hilary Clinton succeeds him.Heavan help us!

I disagree, Malcolm. I think advocating a principled foreign policy (and then hopefull practising it) is both the right thing to do and will help broaden our appeal.

For instance, arguing that we shouldn't sell weapons to inhumane regimes, even in they are "friendly" (e.g. Saudi Arabia), is at the same time right and confounds people's expectations of the Conservatives.

I agree with James. All that 19th century twaddle that we have no need to do anything other than further our interests, which led turning a blind eye to Saddam, the Saudis, ad infinitum ad nauseam, looks a bit weak now. And just because Robin Cook's government failed, or because I don't agree with his party's definition of "ethical", doesn't make it wrong or unappealing (quite the opposite) for the Conservatives to expound a holistic, decent world view. WE used our navy to end slavery, remember?

I do, Graeme. I love the ending to Spielberg's Amistad where the Royal Navy shell and destroy a slave port. One of Britain's finest hours and one of very few Hollywood films where Britons aren't painted as the baddies!

We elect governments to stand-up for our interests at home and abroad. We need someone with the backbone to stand-up and say that our foreign policy is one of national interest, and national interest ONLY, because the British people don't pay politicians to do anything else but stand-up for that.